MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413051065 · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2025.04.041

Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Clinical Practice Guideline for the Endoscopic Management of Nonvariceal Nonpeptic Ulcer Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

2025· article· en· W4413051065 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Alan Barkun, Loren Laine, Grigorios I. Leontiadis, Ian M. Gralnek, Nicholas Carman, Mostafa Ibrahim, Michael Sey, Ali Alali, Matthew Carroll, Lawrence Hookey, Mark Borgaonkar, David Armstrong, James Lau, Nauzer Forbes, Rapat Pittayanon, Frances Tse

Bibliographic record

VenueGastroenterology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal Bleeding Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandWestern UniversitySickKids FoundationQueen's UniversityMcMaster UniversityUniversity of AlbertaPopulation Health Research InstituteUniversity of CalgaryMcGill UniversityLawson Health Research InstituteMcGill University Health Centre
FundersCanadian Association of Gastroenterology
KeywordsMedicineGuidelineGrading (engineering)EndoscopyTherapeutic endoscopyGastric antral vascular ectasiaInternal medicineEctasiaGeneral surgeryGastroenterologySurgeryPathologyArgon plasma coagulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Nonvariceal, nonpeptic ulcer bleeding, arising from etiologies such as malignant tumors, Mallory-Weiss tears (MWTs), Dieulafoy's lesions, and gastric antral vascular ectasia, constitutes a significant and increasing proportion of upper gastrointestinal bleeding cases. These evidence-based guidelines, developed by the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology with international collaboration, are the first to specifically address the endoscopic management of these conditions, aiming to support patients, clinicians, and others in making informed decisions. METHODS: The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology formed a guideline panel with a balanced representation to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The Cochrane Gut Group supported the guideline-development process, including conducting literature searches and performing systematic reviews. The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and adult patients. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used, including developing the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Evidence-to-Decision frameworks, which underwent public comment. RESULTS: The panel formulated 19 conditional recommendations for adult patients with nonvariceal, nonpeptic ulcer bleeding due to malignant tumors, MWTs, Dieulafoy's lesions, and gastric antral vascular ectasia. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with active bleeding from malignant tumors, the panel suggested topical hemostatic agents over conventional endoscopic hemostatic therapy; it also suggested the administration of oncologic therapy after the endoscopic intervention. In patients with active bleeding from MWTs (oozing and spurting), the panel suggested endoscopic band ligation or endoscopic through-the-scope clip over epinephrine injection alone. For nonbleeding MWTs with visible vessels, adherent clots, flat pigmented spots, or clean-based ulcers, the panel suggested against endoscopic hemostatic therapy. For Dieulafoy's lesions, the panel suggested mechanical modalities with endoscopic band ligation or through-the-scope clip, contact thermocoagulation, or injection of sclerosants over epinephrine injection alone. For patients with gastric antral vascular ectasia, the panel suggested endoscopic band ligation over argon plasma coagulation. GUIDELINE ENDORSEMENT: This guideline has been formally endorsed by leading international endoscopy societies: the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, the Sociedad Interamericana de Endoscopía Digestiva, and the World Endoscopy Organization, as well as by the American Gastroenterological Association.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.843

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.313 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGastroenterologySame topicGastrointestinal Bleeding Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207